A PORTLAND COP flagged for poking at police accountability protesters on Facebook was briefly investigated by the Independent Police Review office, the Mercury has learned.

But in a curious gray area for the Portland Police Bureau—a sensitive place where free speech rights collide with concerns about community trust and an officer's credibility in the courtroom—the Mercury has also learned that the activity likely won't lead to discipline.

On November 29, hours before local protesters upset over the police killings of Michael Brown and Eric Garner faced flash-bang grenades and the threat of mass arrest, the officer offered some tart commentary on an article about another police killing, in Alabama.

"Waaaaaaait just one second," he posted. "A black police officer wasn't indicted for shooting an unarmed, naked, white teenager (in Alabama)? Why have no Americans lost their minds over this?"

Then, in December, he liked a Tea Party News Network post shilling for a "fantastic" T-shirt mocking Garner, who was choked by an officer, and his last words, "I can't breathe." The black shirt bears a generic badge and blue stripe between the words "BREATHE EASY" and "DON'T BREAK THE LAW."

(The Mercury, which obtained screen grabs of the officer's Facebook activity from a source, has decided not to identify him absent a more formal investigation.)

The decision not to pursue discipline comes, in part, because of the high bar governments face when attempting to regulate their employees' speech, on matters of "public concern," without being seen as punitive.

The cop didn't suggest he'd do his job differently or reference any local cases. Also, sources point out, the cop's posts simply weren't as inflammatory as those made by other cops whose comments earned national attention—including an officer in San Jose, California, who tweeted to police critics he'd be waiting in a movie theater with his gun.

"If anybody expresses an unpopular belief, it's still generally considered protected speech," says Sergeant Pete Simpson, the police bureau's lead spokesperson.

Moreover, unlike a recent case where a local Nordstrom fired an employee over a Facebook post in which he said, "every time an unarmed black man is killed, you kill a decorated white officer, on his doorstep in front of his family," courts have recognized that the government can have less leeway when firing someone over controversial statements.

That's not to say the case didn't cause some consternation. The city's Independent Police Review director, Constantin Severe, acknowledged the speech issues in play, but was troubled enough that he assigned it for a preliminary investigation last month.

And it points to another concern. Portland's bureau lacks something other police agencies have crafted in the wake of similar controversies: a firm social media policy telling cops what is—and what isn't—acceptable content.

"To my knowledge, [the police bureau] does not have a social media policy," Severe tells the Mercury. "I'm a big believer in having a social media policy, as it would provide clearer expectations than what currently exists for bureau members and the general public of [the bureau's] expectations."

Right now, a cop would have to run afoul of the bureau's directive on professional conduct, which generally prohibits "any act tending to bring reproach or discredit upon the bureau or the city," while also ordering cops not to "make any written or oral statements which would impair or diminish the orderly and effective operations, supervision, or discipline of the bureau."

This case, of course, also echoes reports last year about three Portland cops facing discipline after posting pictures of a Portland badge wrapped in an "I Am Darren Wilson" bracelet, using official police gear to proclaim the innocence of the cop who shot Brown.

The bureau's strong response over those posts, however, wasn't about speech. It was about the unsanctioned use of a badge.

That's potentially confusing. And experts consulted by the Mercury say the most recent Facebook posts, especially after the "I Am Darren Wilson" incident, should persuade the bureau to pursue a policy focused solely on social media.

"It's a perfect example of the kind of online comments that would legitimately raise a question. And the response of looking into it is appropriate," says Traci Park, a California labor attorney who's represented police agencies and has written about social media concerns.

Calling the cop's Facebook posts "more mundane," she said police agencies would help their officers as much as the public in crafting a "specific policy related to officers' use of social media."

"This is the kind of case you're going to see coming up more and more frequently," Park says. "It's these borderline cases that raise the most questions."

And it's not as if the issue is all that new. In 2007, according to a 2011 article in the official newsletter of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, top cops in Lincoln, Nebraska, told officers not to post or write anything online that might be embarrassing. That same 2011 article was co-written by the chief of police in Boise, Idaho, and went on to detail that agency's work on crafting a policy.

Jann Carson of the American Civil Liberties of Oregon said it's not for nothing that the officer in Portland was posting "in his free time" and that his activity "had no bearing on the job that he was doing."

"Police officers, as with other public employees, should still have free speech rights and be able to comment on topical issues," she says. "I don't know that there's a clear answer as to where that line's going to be drawn."

So far the bureau doesn't seem very interested in trying to figure it out. While it has been regularly updating its policy directives, nothing has been written about what their officers should or should not be doing online.

Says Simpson the police spokesperson, "I'm not aware of any new or proposed policy changes regarding social media."